Summary of Hearings on Ocean Policy (8-7-06)

July 27, 2006: House Science Subcommittee
on Environment, Technology and Standards Hearing on Undersea
Research and Ocean Exploration: H.R. 3835, The National Ocean
Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea Research Program
Act of 2005

June 8, 2005: House Resource Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Oceans, Hearing on "The Scientific Review
of Ocean Systems"

May 19, 2005: House Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, Legislative Hearing on
H.R. 50, the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Act"

April 14, 2005: House Resources Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Oceans, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1489, the
Coastal Ocean Observation System Integration and Implementation
Act of 2005

House
Committee on Science
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
Hearing on Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration: H.R. 3835,
The National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea
Research Program Act of 2005
July 27, 2006

On July 27, 2006, House Science Committee Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
(R - MI) convened the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and
Science to discuss H.R. 3835, a bill to merge and provide specific
funding for the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) and the
Ocean Exploration Program (OEP). NURP funds six regional centers that
develop and support marine research technologies, such as undersea
laboratories, remotely operated vehicles, and deep water submarines.
OEP funds exploration missions to study and map poorly understood
regions of the oceans. Ehlers lamented how little people appreciate
the oceans and how little we know about the oceans. Only 5% of the
ocean floor has been explored, but that small area has yielded a wide
range of economic benefits and improved understanding of natural systems.
According to Rep. Ehlers, "[NURP] fills the gap between basic
marine science [done by the OE program] and the more applied science
and information needs of policy makers and resource managers around
the country." As such, he advised, it is crucial to ensure that
the legislation before the House provides the most effective management
of these programs by determining precisely what their benefits are
and whether or not they should be merged into a single program. Mr.
Ehlers also noted that he is attempting to gain passage of the NOAA
Organic Act this year, which will benefit OEP by making exploration
explicitly part of NOAA's mission statement.

Rep. Jim Saxton (R - NJ), who introduced H.R. 3835 in September of
2005, testified in favor of the legislation. The first part of the
bill would authorize funding for deep sea exploration and related
technological advances for 10 years. NOAA would work with the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to review grants and share resources. This
part of the bill would provide $30.5 million in fiscal year 2006 and
increase funding to $70.9 million in fiscal year 2015. The second
part of the bill would fund the six regional research facilities at
steadily increasing amounts for 10 years. The legislation creates
an "Ocean Exploration Technology and Infrastructure Task Force"
to coordinate activities. Agencies on the task force would include
NSF, the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Office
of Naval Research and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Saxton argued
that the bill would improve the cooperative capacity of the two programs,
ensure a reliable funding stream and provide the stability necessary
for program managers to create long-term goals and plans. Because
of their divergent missions and organizational structures, fully combining
the programs might be unwise.

Each of the other witnesses also supported H.R. 3835.
Codification of NURP and OEP will benefit these programs by providing
more secure funding and clearer legislative guidance that is based
on the programs' existing strengths. However, there was some disagreement
among panelists as to the extent to which the programs should be combined.
Dr. Spinrad favored the creation of a limited cooperative effort by
establishing the task force. Dr. McNutt argued that creating a partnership
between the two programs will facilitate the smooth transfer of research
questions from where they are generated by OEP's exploratory missions
to where they may be answered by NURP's advanced technology programs.
She pointed out that the coordination of these two programs will only
be successful if each retains its basic structure. Rather than prescribing
how this coordination should occur, such as through a task force,
Dr. McNutt advised the committee that NOAA should be granted as much
flexibility as possible. An overly prescriptive bill could hamper
the process and make the resultant program less effective.

-CTD

House
Resources Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, Legislative
Hearing on "The Scientific Review of Ocean Systems"
June 8, 2005

The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans met to gain
insight on the current scientific research regarding ocean systems.
The topics presented by expert witnesses highlighted how aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems are globally intertwined through complex ocean
processes. Each panelist testified on a range of phenomena occurring
in the ocean, from ocean circulation to bacterial processes. With
ocean and fishing issues hitting close to home, Chairman Wayne Gilchrest
(D-MD) welcomed the experts by expressing his desire to learn about
the current status of our oceans, "I understand the appeal of
potentially finding life in distant planets and outer space. But,
I also want to understand life on this planet."

Dr. Terrence Joyce of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)
opened the testimony with remarks on ocean circulation and how it
affects the climate. Joyce spoke about short term and long term climate
variability events, like the 2-5 year El Nino cycle and the longer
20-30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Joyce focused on the
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) because it is a climate variability
occurrence the U.S. is notably faced with, but whose time scale is
poorly defined. This oscillation has positive and negative phases
that strongly impact the U.S.; the negative phase increases hurricane
intensity, driving hurricanes westward toward the Southeast and Gulf
of Mexico, while the positive phase hurricanes curve up into the North
Atlantic Ocean . Joyce commented that though scientists understand
how major ocean circulations, like the Great Ocean Conveyor, affect
climate change, more research is needed. Currently, Joyce and other
members of WHOI are working in an international collaborative effort
to build an ocean observing system that would investigate future climate
changes. Joyce concluded that federal support in such endeavors is
crucial for understanding the ocean's role in climate change.

Also from WHOI, Dr. Rob Evans spoke about the seafloor and how it
influences oceanic events, like the December 2004 tsunami. Many deep
ocean and near-shore seafloor events are sporadic and "occur
on timescales well beyond those of politics," but have been able
to be observed through technological advances over the past decade.
These advances allow for the monitoring of beach and barrier island
morphology and for the exploration of offshore methane, which can
provide information about possible methane slumps that could cause
tsunamis. Evans emphasized that the seafloor is a segment of the earth
"that remains largely unexplored, yet one to which all our futures
are intimately tied."

Dr. James Hollibaugh from the University of Georgia testified next,
giving the subcommittee information about oceanic bacteria. In his
testimony, Hollibaugh declared that currently there are 1 billion
metric tons of bacterioplankton live in the ocean, which are import
because they break down organic matter and pollutants, and degrade
hazardous spilled hydrocarbons. Hollibaugh also discussed how the
bacteria affects fisheries, where the "microbial loop" (food
chain) could ultimately be destroyed if bacteria is removed from the
loop. Hollibaugh suggested that further investigations into the importance
of bacteria been conducted so that their role in the ecosystem as
well as human health could be better understood.

Dr. Kevin Sellner of the Chesapeake Research Consortium spoke to
the committee about human-induced and natural harmful algal blooms
(HAB). As a direct result of water physics, these blooms occur in
all reaches of the ocean, from near-shore coastal zones to the open
ocean. In the Gulf of Mexico, toxic HABs have killed whales and have
caused paralysis in humans and sea lions, otters and clams have died
from toxic blooms off of California's coast. Sellner explained that
these blooms have resulted from a high influx of excessive nutrients
and from poor mixing of the waters. Because of these causes, Sellner
claims that HABs can be controlled and intervention steps can be taken;
for example clay applications can reduce HABs and beach closures can
reduce the risk of the toxic algae to human health. When Gilgrest
(R-MD) asked if there has been an increase in HABs, Sellner responded
"yes, a substantial global increase. More people, more waste."

Dr. Mark Ohman from the University of California testified about
the interactions of physical and biological processes affecting the
ecosystem of California. In his testimony, Ohman explained that California
has a high productive marine ecosystem that supports important fisheries,
feeds marine mammals and birds, and houses 5 national marine sanctuaries.
However, Ohman suggested that the current warming trend will put California's
marine ecosystem at risk because zooplankton that is vital to the
environment will decline by 70% if the temperature increases by 1.2-1.4°C.

The last panelist to testify was Dr. Steven Murawski from the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Murawski talked about marine ecosystems
and how harvesting fish affects the distributions and abundances of
fish species. Murawski explained that scientists currently know how
harvesting, climate, and human impacts affect marine ecosystems. Also,
there is technology that allows for the mapping of marine habitats,
so that fishing impacts can be further understood.

-AMS

House
Resources Committee Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, Legislative
Hearing on H.R. 50, the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Act"
May 19, 2005

Witnesses

Panel 1
The Honorable Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Chairman of the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards

Panel 2
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Undersecretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Andrew Rosenberg, Ph.D., member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and Professor at the University of New Hampshire
Arthur Nowel, Vice Chair of the Board of Governors Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE)
Tony MacDonald, Executive Director, Coastal States Organization

The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a legislative
hearing to consider H.R. 50, an "organic act" for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In his opening remarks,
Resources Committee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) expressed confidence
in working with the House Science Committee to pass a NOAA organic
act, which would, for the first time, define and codify NOAA's core
mission and functions. Since its creation in 1970, NOAA has been operating
without the guidance of a congressional mandate, limiting the agency's
ability to provide authority and leadership in ocean science research
and resource management. In past years, disputes among the House,
Senate and Administration have stalled the passage of a NOAA act,
but Gilchrest said he hopes that this year, recommendations of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy will likely bolster wide-spread support
of the bill. At the hearing, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI),
who sponsored H.R. 50, presented his bill alongside alternative proposals
from the Administration, the Ocean Commission, and other stakeholder
groups.

1) to understand and predict changes in the systems of the Earth's
oceans and atmosphere;
2) to conserve and manage coastal, oceans and Great Lakes ecosystems
to meet national economic, social and environmental needs; and
3) to educate the public about these topics.

Under the guidance of Representative Ehlers, the House Science Committee
successfully passed their portion of H.R. 50 on May 18th, the day
before the Resources Committee hearing. Although H.R. 50 has gained
much support as in the House Science Committee, H.R. 50 only codifies
NOAA's science and research capabilities. Because resource management
issues do not fall under the Science Committee's jurisdiction, the
bill leaves out some of NOAA's functions that are most critical to
addressing ocean ecosystem health, such as fisheries assessment, coastal
zone management, and ocean mapping and charting.

In his remarks, Ehlers was quick to distinguish H.R. 50 from the Administration's
version of a NOAA organic act, which according to Ehlers, is simply
"a short mission statement and a laundry list of specific
authorities it would like, such as laying phone cables and using NOAA
funds to pay for receptions." In contrast to the Administration's
proposal, Ehlers said, H.R. 50 responds to the nation's immediate
ocean management needs by establishing four categories of NOAA operations-The
National Weather Service, research and education, operations and services,
and resource management- along with a leadership structure to oversee
these operations. Among some specific functions, the bill also directs
the Secretary of Commerce "to maintain within NOAA operational
and service programs to support routine data collection and direct
services and products relating to satellite, observations, and coastal,
ocean and Great Lakes information."

Although H.R. 50 establishes a broader mission than previous legislation
moved by the House, NOAA's top authority Admiral Lautenbacher testified
that H.R. 50 reads "more like an authorization bill than a true
organic act." Presenting the Administration's proposal, he suggested
H.R. 50 not highlight the importance of specific programs such as
the National Weather Service or data-gathering satellite missions.
Lautenbacher also recommended that the act be amended to allow NOAA
to decide its own restructuring scheme and to expand the scope of
the NOAA Advisory Board, which the bill also seeks to establish. According
to Lautenbacher, setting such specific guidelines would restrict NOAA's
ability to respond to changes in science and policy in the long-term.
The Administration's proposal would instead grant NOAA "general
authority" to operate partnerships, enter into contracts, and
conduct education and outreach programs.

As Committee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) noted part-way through
the hearing, a fundamental disagreement persisted between the Administration
and Congress over how prescriptive or flexible a NOAA organic act
should be, a dilemma Gilchrest said the committee must take care and
time to work out.

Other witnesses offered insight into this debate as they presented
their recommendations for codifying NOAA's resource management responsibilities.
Andrew Rosenberg, who testified on behalf of the Ocean Commission,
endorsed the Ehlers' version of the organic act, stating that it struck
the right balance between prescriptiveness and flexibility. In order
to address the remaining 200 recommendations of the Commission report,
the NOAA organic act must "set a strong direction for U.S. ocean
policy, establish NOAA's position as the Nation's lead ocean agency,
and motivate restructuring and refocusing of NOAA to enable it to
meet the challenges ahead." In fact, Rosenberg suggested that
the Resources Committee should add to H.R. 50 a mandate for integrating
atmospheric, land and water science and policy functions under an
"ecosystem-based" management approach.

Arthur Nowel, who represented a major oceanographic society, agreed
that NOAA's overarching mission should bring together the agency's
myriad programs around the mission of eco-system based management.
In addition, NOAA should be tasked with expanding the scientific basis
for ocean management, including life-cycle assessments and human activities,
and bolstering higher education programs. Tony MacDonald of the Coastal
States Organization, also supported the consideration of adding a
definition of the ecosystem-based approach, and included in his testimony
specific suggestions on how to word NOAA's mission and purposes. In
affect, this wording would establish a mandate for NOAA around a service-based
approach that promoted sustainable development, sound data collection
and management, and strong interagency, private, and international
partnerships.

For the purpose of public safety, the National Weather Service is
the only program specifically mandated in H.R. 50. Following the testimony,
Chairman Gilchrest asked the panelists whether the organic act could
establish primary goals that would be compatible with maintaining
other important programs, such as the National Environmental Satellite,
the National Fisheries Service, and the Ocean Service. Rosenberg responded
that in order to effectively sustain these programs, the act must
do more than simply suggest these programs be more integrated, and
provide a mandate for how such programs service NOAA's overall mission.

In closing the hearing, Chairman Gilchrest reiterated his optimism
about advancing H.R. 50 through the House, but also cautioned the
public to "have a sense of patient urgency with Congress,"
in drafting the legislation to address all aired concerns. He added,
"we (members of Congress) are like an aircraft carrier moving
ourselves forward using canoe paddles," on this issue.

-KCA

House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and OceansLegislative Hearing on H.R. 1489, the Coastal Ocean Observation
System Integration and Implementation Act of 2005
April 14, 2005

Members from the House Resources Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee
invited ocean research experts and officials from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the U.S. Navy to discuss H.R. 1489, the Coastal Ocean Observation
System Integration and Implementation Act of 2005. The bill, introduced
by Subcommittee Chairman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) would authorize $138
million to NOAA over four years to establish a Coastal Ocean Observation
System. Gilchrest called the bill "a first step in an inclusive
process that I hope will result in a more cohesive and comprehensive
approach to coastal and ocean observation systems."

In the first panel of testimony, agency officials discussed who the
key federal players should be in an integrated ocean observation system,
and how legislation might help to expand and coordinate the myriad,
fragmented data systems already in operation. NOAA currently manages
100 data systems according to Spinrad, Assistant Administrator of
NOAA's National Ocean Service. The Minerals Management Service also
collects deep water data from oil and gas rigs and shares the data
with other U.S. agencies and Mexico, according to Chris Kearney who
heads DOI's office of policy and international affairs. Kearney said
that the U.S. Geological Survey, which already provides valuable information
to resource managers, should play a leading role in the Integrated
Ocean Observation System (IOOS).

According to Spinrad's recommendations, legislation must recognize
foremost that an IOOS depends on connectivity and interoperability
among agencies, private partners, and others. Spinrad and Kearney
both recommended that the legislation should identify NOAA as the
lead agency to provide oversight and implementation planning.

Addressing potential data access concerns, Gilchrest asked Robert
Winokur, a U.S. Navy Oceanographer, how national security concerns
might affect how information is disclosed from the Department of Defense.
Winokur testified that with an early understanding of the relevant
security concerns, the impact of these concerns would be minimized.
He added that DOD would be most likely to withhold underwater acoustic
and geophysical data, particularly if the observation equipment was
near a military facility.

Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) asked panelists whether the legislation
offers adequate funding to provide an optimal baseline for enhancing
observations. Agency officials responded that the proposed $130 million
is adequate under the assumption that a baseline of funding already
exists through current programs and technological investments. Winokur
suggested, however, that funding be phased in more gradually, as elements
of the system become viable, maximizing the amount of investment that
goes into the communication, data management, and data access components,
which he called the system's "backbone." In addition, federal
programs should be expanded as necessary to increase data accuracy
and interoperability.

Ocean research experts who testified in the second panel provided
a more critical assessment of H.R. 1489. These witnesses agreed the
legislation was a good first step, but they pressed hard for increased
funding and better recognition of regional oceanographic associations.
In addition to increased funding, the legislation should allow for
more effective transfer of resources to state and private research
and education programs. Debra Hernandez, from South Carolina's Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, said a focus on regional
leadership is important to enhance the observation system at the resource
level, and would engage a broader constituency. Without it, the legislation
seems to centralize the process within NOAA. Additional recommendations
addressed a need for the legislation to clarify the system "units"-
whether they be individual agencies, regions, or federally-funded
programs- emphasize near-shore and estuarine data, and initiate a
formal K-12 education program.

While all witnesses agreed that regional associations, such as Ocean
US, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, and the Coastal
States Organization, should be central to the system's structure,
panelists could not provide Gilchrest with any specific language that
would satisfy this recommendation. Fred Grassle from Rutgers University
offered that language could somehow identify or formalize regional
sectors. William Reay, Manager of the Chesapeake Bay Reserve, suggested
that the system should target end-users, rather than other federal
or state participants, in order to shift the focus back to the resource
level.